<html>
<body>
At 07:57 PM 2/4/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">
Recordings can be deceiving and I don’t like to rely on them for a true
picture of a piano’s tone. I’ve heard some beautiful recordings on
Yamahas that were very un Yamaha like in their overall impression.
Recording has gotten so sophisticated lately in terms of the ability to
manipulate tone so I’m generally reluctant to draw any conclusions that
way. <br>
</font></blockquote><br>
It's been like that for well over thirty years, and is very trackable
when listening to recordings spanning the period. Abram Chasins
wrote about the problem as early as 1957.<br><br>
To get any faint idea of what instruments actually sound/sounded like in
real performance venues, you have to go back to the air-tapes that were
made in the mid-1950s. A few of these have been released on CD in
relatively unadulterated form. One that is often readily available
is the Horrorwitz "return" concert to Carnegie Hall.
Anything done after ~ 1960 starts to get into multi-track using different
microphone types and various kinds of electronic
"enhancements".<br><br>
Horace<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">
<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2 color="#000080">David
Love</font><br>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net <br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
[<a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Erwinspiano@aol.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> pianotech@ptg.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Soundboard Resonces and the Wogram Article<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font size=2> David<br>
I hear what your saying & I agree. I'm not sure this
answers any of your 2 question directly but I just listened to a CD
of Ron Overs piano. A 71/2 ft played by Scott
Thile. Scott is a very talented player but the <b>other</b> real
talent is in Ron & his piano. I have listened to many
good to horrible piano recordings & most probably Steinway Ds so I
have a good feel for this sort of thing. At first I though it wasa really
good D but then as I listened closely I realized how purely powerful
& clear the tone was. Especially the top four treble
octaves. The whole piano was good but Rachmaninoff really showcases
the trebles & they shined. <br>
Pure tonal power. Oh...My ...Gosh.
The Rachmaninoff was gorgeous but the pianist had a lot to work
with. Quite a good recording & the sound was what I personally have
always hoped for intuitively. The recording subdued the bass a bit but
still the whole piano was a dream.<br>
A preferable sound? Oh yeah Baby!!<br>
Dale Erwin<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>My experience so far is that the RC&S boards with cutoff and fish
etc., are<br>
<dd>better, but different. By better, I mean more predictable,
better success<br>
<dd>rate, fewer quirky things like killer octaves, dead trebles,
unsmooth<br>
<dd>transitions, thuddy low basses, distortions in the tenor,
strange<br>
<dd>resonances, dead spots. There are some qualities that change
and my attempt<br>
<dd>in all this is to understand why and whether those other intangibles
are<br>
<dd>also controllable. <br><br>
<dd>David Love<br>
<dd>davidlovepianos@comcast.net <br>
<br>
</dl><font size=2> </font></blockquote></body>
</html>